At some point this thread will devolve into yet another Obama vs Romney fest, so let me stir the pot right away and say "Thank you, Obama! We are now officially better off than we were four years ago!"

But U-6, which includes discouraged people no longer actively looking for work, remains rock steady at 14.7%, meaning that the gains are coming from people dropping out of U-3 and retiring to the couch and cheetos.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):But U-6, which includes discouraged people no longer actively looking for work, remains rock steady at 14.7%, meaning that the gains are coming from people dropping out of U-3 and retiring to the couch and cheetos.

Or retiring because there investments/nest egg has recovered enough, or reaching SS eligibility (you do remember that the baby boomers are supposed to be swelling the numbers of those not working don't you?), or not looking for work because their partner/spouse got gainful employment. No one ever seems to want to note these important elements.

We knew for years that the numbers of the baby boomer generation not working would grow, and it will continue to do so for some time.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

U-6 includes:
- Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.
- Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work.
- Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Labor force participation rate is continuing to fall, far faster than can be explained by increasing retirements. Remember guys, U-3 and U-6 only count people withing the participating labor force. So the 2% drop (roughly 6 million people) are simply removed from the equation. Maybe 1 million can be explained by more retirees, but what of the other 5 million?

[Edited 2012-10-05 07:39:45]

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):But U-6, which includes discouraged people no longer actively looking for work, remains rock steady at 14.7%, meaning that the gains are coming from people dropping out of U-3 and retiring to the couch and cheetos.

Exactly. I am not going to say that the numbers are a fraud. If they are we will see it a few months but right now you have to trust the numbers. It is improvement no doubt about that but how much of a real improvement can be debated. This article does not seem to be too positive. When looking at job stuff I prefer to go by mainly business news sites. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718

Quote:The U-6 unemployment number, which accounts for the underemployed and those who have given up looking for jobs, held steady at 14.7 percent.

Quote:Labor's birth-death model, which estimates jobs created and lost through newly opened and closed businesses, impacted the September numbers little, actually showing a decline of 9,000.

I think for the President he needs to say look unemployment is doping but he can't take it too far. Making it too big of a deal could hurt him. It is still high. For Romney he needs to focus on where we lost jobs and how the real unemployment rate is steady. The recovery is still slow and the numbers do not add up perfectly. The next day or so with analysis from the numbers will be interesting.

Quote:The unemployment rate in the U.S. unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, as employers took on more part-time workers.

Lets also remember the shopping season is coming. Stores are going to hire temporary workers.

Quote:The household survey showed an 873,000 increase in employment, the biggest since June 1983, excluding the annual Census population adjustments. Some 582,000 Americans took part- time positions because of slack business conditions or those jobs were the only work they could find.

"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):U-6 includes:
- Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.
- Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work.
- Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Labor force participation rate is continuing to fall, far faster than can be explained by increasing retirements. Remember guys, U-3 and U-6 only count people withing the participating labor force. So the 2% drop (roughly 6 million people) are simply removed from the equation. Maybe 1 million can be explained by more retirees, but what of the other 5 million?

OK, then what about this portion:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):or not looking for work because their partner/spouse got gainful employment.

I know quite a few people where both people had to be working because the primary breadwinner lost their "good job", so they both have had worked for the last three years. However one of these couples, the husband got a "good job" again recently and she so stopped working.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

U-6 includes:
- Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months.
- Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work.
- Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

The employment rate is still not great but at least in the US it has improved slowly but steadily from 10% in 2009 to 7.8% now. Its heading in the right direction and is now on the same level as when Obama took office. No matter how you spin it that's an achievement, certainly when you compare it to Europe which had about the same unemployment rate two/three years ago but has seen it increase since to over 11%.

Your devotion to partisan politics is touching. How appealing it must be to think America is in worse shape only to discover the initial joy is factually incorrect:

"
The decline in the main unemployment rate was driven by positive factors. In previous months, the rate has fallen because more Americans were no longer looking for work. That wasn’t the case in September The labor force increased, as more people were seeking jobs"

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):But U-6, which includes discouraged people no longer actively looking for work, remains rock steady at 14.7%, meaning that the gains are coming from people dropping out of U-3 and retiring to the couch and cheetos.

I'm not gonna get into the politics of it all, and this is good news, but I often warn about temporary good news... will this rate continue to fall? Is it a (low) spike that will just return to normal? And what caused it? (was it a certain party's policies or just natural growth?) Not to be a Debbie Downer, but we've seen good news before that was just an anomaly, not a trend. Hopefully the economy continues to improve!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 13):Let's revisit this topic come February after all the Christmas holiday seasonal jobs are finished.

Sure we can, because it is not just the holiday shoppers. Stores wouldn't be hiring them if it wasn't for the money they believe will be spent. the real impact of the seasonals will be seen in October and November when they do finally come fully onboard for the holidays

The housing market is recovering, manufacturing is up, and many other influences on the economy are working towards resolution.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):I'm not gonna get into the politics of it all, and this is good news, but I often warn about temporary good news... will this rate continue to fall? Is it a (low) spike that will just return to normal? And what caused it? (was it a certain party's policies or just natural growth?) Not to be a Debbie Downer, but we've seen good news before that was just an anomaly, not a trend. Hopefully the economy continues to improve!

the trend is your ftriend. Since 2009/10 the unemployment rate has been going down, with slight blips to the high side.

Well, IMHO these numbers have to be treated with a certain amount of caution. it may mark the beginning of a very positive trend, but as DeltaMD90 points out, could also be a low spike that lasts one or two months. It might be extra hiring for Halloween/Christmas. Could be a number of things, but for right now, take it as a good sign. The market is doing fairly well these days, and has been for some months, and it typically leads the economy by 6-8 months, so perhaps this has some traction.

It's interesting to compare, here in Canada our unemployment rate has been slowly ticking upward over the past seven or eight months by about 0.1 or so per month, from around 6.8 to 7.4, all the while as the economy pumps out more jobs (53,000 last month, for an economy 1/10th the size of the US). What's happening is that as more people are employed, more sideline onlookers are rejoining the workforce, which forces the unemployment rate up. Seems crazy but when you look behind the simple figure, it does make sense.

Well it does indeed look good, but of course I'm gonna investigate both sides of the story. Still don't quite understand the U-3 and U-6 debate, that does have the potential to make the good looking graph you posted useless...

Total employed persons has remained at just over 142 million since the beginning of the year. The trend is flat.

Meanwhile the population has increased by an estimated 2.2 million. Just to keep up with population increase and keep the same REAL employment rate as a year ago, we should have added at least a million jobs. And we have not. From the chart, it looks like job creation in the past year is damned close to zero.

edit: I don't blame the Obama administration for fudging the numbers. BLS figures are pretty much designed to give you as rosey a picture as possible (unless you go into the details), and have done so for years.

But I do get mad at people harping about this like it's such great news. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

[Edited 2012-10-05 10:38:45]

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):Total employed persons has remained at just over 142 million since the beginning of the year. The trend is flat.

Jan 2012
141,600,0000
Oct 2012
142,974,000

Not FLAT.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):Meanwhile the population has increased by an estimated 2.2 million. Just to keep up with population increase and keep the same REAL employment rate as a year ago, we should have added at least a million jobs. And we have not. From the chart, it looks like job creation in the past year is damned close to zero.

Very slowly, I am not convinced if it is due to any such policy or the economy just naturally rebounding. I think under most circumstances, the economy would gradually get better.

Not trying to be facetious, I'm just trying to make sure I don't go down a road thinking a policy works even if it hasn't. Both sides have good points, the strongest I have seen is the recovery hasn't been as effective due to Congressional gridlock. That being said, I can't be 100% sure seeing slow growth is an indicator that a policy is good or not.

Don't get me wrong, I hope it is! I don't care who gets elected, I want the best for America. I'm not in the "I hope the President fails even if it hurts the economy" boat

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):Very slowly, I am not convinced if it is due to any such policy or the economy just naturally rebounding. I think under most circumstances, the economy would gradually get better.

You are correct, but it is partially due to the fact that the same disaster that caused the crash of 2008 has been prevented from recurring.

There is a recovery and there are more jobs. People looking for them are finding them.

I guarantee that if there were a Republican in the White House, Dreadnought would be singing the praises of how well the recovery is going.

Tell me, Dreadnought, I thought your house Republicans were promising to bring the jobs back. What do you feel they've done to help that process?

None of these numbers and reports mean anything unless the voters 'feel' the change in a positive direction. Another important indicator is wages and spending power. Lest I read, wages were down 10% under Obama. It would be interesting to see what job sectors saw the most growth. Those professionals that were out of work for awhile that had good paying jobs that just got hired on at a low paying job isn't going to be too thrilled about the economy.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):Those professionals that were out of work for awhile that had good paying jobs that just got hired on at a low paying job isn't going to be too thrilled about the economy.

Get used to it. It's only going to get worse. Most conservatives like Romney feel that workers in the U.S. are overpaid and need to take wage cuts so we can compete with sweatshops in China. This trend started long before Obama and will continue long after him.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):edit: I don't blame the Obama administration for fudging the numbers. BLS figures are pretty much designed to give you as rosey a picture as possible (unless you go into the details), and have done so for years.

Now you support the insinuation that the numbers have been influenced by the administration.... nice.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):Very slowly, I am not convinced if it is due to any such policy or the economy just naturally rebounding. I think under most circumstances, the economy would gradually get better.

I am very sure that it is due to cycle not policy and that is exactly why the Republican's very much want to have one of their own in office so they can take credit for the natural upswing in the economy. Otherwise President Obama will get some of the credit (there is no way the politics of the situation will allow the president to get all of the credit).

Yeah, it was funny, FoxNews ran a headliner on how the nations wages were down 10% under Obama but then quickly seemed to pull it because the other data bit was that for wealthier Americans, their wages have increased under Obama.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

That's not hard to answer. 4 years ago 750,000 people lost their job every month, Lehman Brothers had filed bankruptcy, the DOW had been cut in half, and there was a very real risk that the nation would go into a true depression. (GM & Chrysler were both in trouble, but W was pushing that issue into a new President's term.)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):But U-6, which includes discouraged people no longer actively looking for work, remains rock steady at 14.7%,

We have had this situation my entire adult life. Even during Reagan's Time there were people who had stopped looking for work for one of many reasons.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):meaning that the gains are coming from people dropping out of U-3 and retiring to the couch and cheetos.

All of the gains? Really?

What are the historic ratios?

Quoting flymia (Reply 4):I am not going to say that the numbers are a fraud

They were presented by the same "government workers" that W used.

To be blunt, the most important factor was that period that delivered the bikini graph. The end of Bush and the start of Obama. Since Obama because President there has been a long run of improving the situation, but the reality is that all the jobs sent overseas are going to stay overseas for a long time. Romney has no more chance of bringing those jobs back than Obama. Actually I put Romney behind Obama for long term job growth as Romney will be supporting the private health insurance industry which is simply going to increase employer costs.

True.
In today's global economy, a "business friendly" tax/economic policy in a first world nation means low paying jobs are where the big job growth will come from. You're either buying cheap goods at Walmart or your working at Walmart...How to create high paying jobs while staying competitive globally is not something anyone really knows how to do.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):edit: I don't blame the Obama administration for fudging the numbers. BLS figures are pretty much designed to give you as rosey a picture as possible (unless you go into the details), and have done so for years.

In that case, then the improvement is real. What matters is that the methods are consistent.

What really burns my shorts is that the Conservatives are actually cheering a bad jobs outlook. Is it really like that? You hate this President so much that you want to see the country suffer more just to get him out of office?

The rate over the first seven months of 2012 has been remarkably consistent; it’s never been above 8.3 percent or below 8.1 percent. That steadiness speaks to the fact that it simply won’t drop in any precipitous way in the near or even medium term — a fact the Federal Reserve’s policy committee acknowledged in a statement earlier this week.

Just for kicks, we asked the folks at Hamilton Place Strategies, a Republican economic consulting firm, to project how many jobs the economy would need to add in each of the next three months for the unemployment rate to get underneath eight percent. The answer? 279,000 jobs a month, a total that even in the best month of 2012 — January when 275,000 jobs were created — the economy didn’t reach.

With even the most optimistic Democrats admitting that such sustained job growth is simply not going to happen, the question now is how/whether the country’s first black president can again make history by winning a second term amid record-high unemployment in the country.

Let's not forget; no sitting U.S. President has been re-elected (post WWII) with unemployment numbers north of 7.2%.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. -

Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work.-

Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Personally I couldn't care less about the first two of those groups. The third group I have a lot of sympathy (and respect) for, but if you can't be bothered to look for work it's your own fault.

For me the most useful metric is Population/Jobs. The rest is just dependent on what spin you prefer.

If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.

Doc, with respect, I do not see where regulations have been emplaced to prevent another meltdown. As we have read, those that were put on the floor were gutted to the point of....uselessness. The Congress once again caved to the lobbyists from the financial sector. We need Glass-Steagall type legislation back. And these reports of the unemployment numbers are great, but with the way wages have been, the only thing we will be albe to afford are trinkets at Walmart...from Thailand.....

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 28):Most conservatives like Romney feel that workers in the U.S. are overpaid and need to take wage cuts so we can compete with sweatshops in China.

It doesn't matter what they or anyone else "feels", they're telling you what is happening. Whether you or I think they are overpaid, underpaid, or paid just right doesn't matter when the very simple fact is that Chinese workers can do many jobs more cheaply. That leaves three basic options: do the job cheaper, do the job better, or do a different job. There's protectionism too, but that's just stupid and should not be considered as a serious option.

Quoting pu (Reply 31):How to create high paying jobs while staying competitive globally is not something anyone really knows how to do.

What people need to understand is that Obama's policies, or at least the few he managed to pass, are not exclusively aimed at boosting the economy but rather at cleaning up America. It's not difficult to engage the turbo button on the economy, it's just that those types of growth will ultimately be built on a bubble and after a few years of amazing numbers end in a calamity. A lot of Obama's efforts are aimed at reducing the deficit, generating a surplus and leading America towards a sustainable, organically grown economy.

If anyone is actually interested in ''economics'', I would be more than delighted to provide the equations, the calculations, or just references - be they historic precedences or economic textbooks.

Quoting pu (Reply 36):Quoting EACOAS (Reply 33):Let's not forget; no sitting U.S. President has been re-elected (post WWII) with unemployment numbers north of 7.2%.
Sure, if you don't count Truman in 1948 with a 7.9% rate
or
Reagan in 1984 with a 7.4% rate

Funny how all of the people that I know who have been out of work for the last year or two and have been looking for jobs weekly if not daily still can not find work yet the news comes out and says unemployment is going down.

Sounds like a bunch of lies to me. Oh, and by the way for some of you questioning the holiday hiring I have seen signs in all the major department stores for the last several weeks for holiday hiring, so this must be the (supposed) fall in the "main stream media" news, hoping to make Obama look good.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 45):
Funny how all of the people that I know who have been out of work for the last year or two and have been looking for jobs weekly if not daily still can not find work yet the news comes out and says unemployment is going down.

Sounds like a bunch of lies to me. Oh, and by the way for some of you questioning the holiday hiring I have seen signs in all the major department stores for the last several weeks for holiday hiring, so this must be the (supposed) fall in the "main stream media" news, hoping to make Obama look good.

If the average American stops being obese, you will still get fat if you eat burgers all day long. That's an analogy.

Besides, if all these places are hiring, then why can't your unemployed friends find work?

If people have a problem with Obama emotionally, then that's okay. But trying to make up arguments out of thin air in order to somehow substantiate such baseless claims doesn't make one's point; it makes one lose all credibility (with everybody who likes facts better than assumptions).

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 45):Funny how all of the people that I know who have been out of work for the last year or two and have been looking for jobs weekly if not daily still can not find work yet the news comes out and says unemployment is going down.

Sounds like a bunch of lies to me. Oh, and by the way for some of you questioning the holiday hiring I have seen signs in all the major department stores for the last several weeks for holiday hiring, so this must be the (supposed) fall in the "main stream media" news, hoping to make Obama look good.

Why is it that the same party that has trusted the numbers when everything is above 8% suddently finds the source of the number suspect when the number falls below 8%.

The DOW is up 12 % since Jan 2012
The Housing rates are at historic lows
The GDP is increasing
The unemployment rate has only improved from 8.3 to 7.8 % from january, which is a only a 6% improvement.

Yet because the number slipped below 8% the GOP declares fraud.

The GOP defies logic and the number.s It's the definition of today's GOP.

Except that the large majority of jobs in America don't require education. You don't need an education to work at Wal-Mart or Applebees. Sure, we could send everyone to get a degree in engineering or to vocational school to be a plumber, but you'd just end up with a lot of overqualified engineers and plumbers working at Wal-Mart.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 48):You don't need an education to work at Wal-Mart or Applebees.

No you don't, but those are low paying jobs. If you spend a career slinging appetizers, your earning potential is small no matter where you live.

The simple truth is that things have to be done better or they have to be done cheaper. When you have uneducated Americans and uneducated Chinese who can screw together the same products just as well but the Chinese person will do it for half the price the decision is simple. And unless Americans are going to start working at Chinese wages, the decision is going to stay simple.

The solution is to move upmarket. Do things foreigners cannot do, or at least not nearly as well. Look at what American industry does export: high tech equipment, industrial goods, aircraft, heavy machinery, etc. Having a toaster factory move to China is really a problem only if you don't know how to do anything besides make toasters.

There's really nothing complicated about the formula: lower the tax burdens to keep overall costs of doing business under control, limit regulation to keep barriers to entry low, and have an educated workforce to carry out new, innovative ideas.

I admit I made a mistake and was looking at 1949 and not 1948 but in November 1984 the unemployment rate is 7.4%, so no your point does not stand.
.
Also, we're talking about precisely two one-term presidents here: Carter and Bush, both of whom were behind in he polls at this point.
.
Copying everything from a Right-wing blog, (brietbart) & repeating it all over the internet because of lazy people who simply believe what they're told by a Romney surrogate is what led to embarrassmets like the claim Carter was leading in the polls at this point or that current polls take party affiliation into account and are weighting polls against the Republicans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):high tech equipment, industrial goods, aircraft, heavy machinery, etc. Having a toaster factory move to China is really a problem only if you don't know how to do anything besides make toasters.

But there's a limited number of these high end jobs needed in the world...not to mention that you need all the support jobs to create an environment where these high-end jobs will work (police, teachers, firefighters, construction workers, etc).

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 51):But there's a limited number of these high end jobs needed in the world...not to mention that you need all the support jobs to create an environment where these high-end jobs will work (police, teachers, firefighters, construction workers, etc).

So, where's the problem? Farms got way more efficient and employed fewer people, at which point people went to take jobs in cities working in factories. And now as factories have been leaving for a while people have moved towards the information economy. So maybe instead of trying to conjure up methods to send our economy back to the 1960s when you could get hired to put screw one part to another part at the local factory and get paid a wage that enabled a house, a new car every two years, a summer vacation, and maybe even a color TV we should be more interested in finding and embracing what's next.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 51):
there's a limited number of these high end jobs needed in the world

Exactly.
Despite the assurances of those stuck in Stage 2 of Kohlberg's scale, the "information" or "knowledge" jobs do not simply multiply to match the educated population.
.
College-degreed waitresses and flight attendants are all over the place and simply growing education doesn't mean more high paying jobs appear....the inevitable result of unbridled capitalism is a tiny wealthy class collecting rent from a massive low wage bulk of humanity, and we've been headed that way for 30 or so years as all wealth gains go to the top and the top only. (despite education gains)

Quoting casinterest (Reply 47):Why is it that the same party that has trusted the numbers when everything is above 8% suddently finds the source of the number suspect when the number falls below 8%.

Because they stand to gain from America's failure. For that reason, not only have they been rooting for America's economy to fail, but they have been doing everything they can in Congress to attempt to force an economic failure.

Let's stop beating around the bush and just tell it like it is: The GOP has turned into an Anti-American party that is concerned with gaining power at the expense of America if that is what is necessary to achieve that goal. They are not a loyal opposition, but a DISloyal opposition intentionally trying to sabotage their own country to further their own ends.

Fortunately, it seems as if this behavior has actually become obvious enough to the average voter that they will not succeed in taking over another branch of government.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):The solution is to move upmarket. Do things foreigners cannot do, or at least not nearly as well. Look at what American industry does export: high tech equipment, industrial goods, aircraft, heavy machinery, etc. Having a toaster factory move to China is really a problem only if you don't know how to do anything besides make toasters.

So in other words, run an economy like Germany's. Great. Germany has higher tax rates than the U.S. They have a large amount of government regulation and a strong labor movement. Somehow, in spite of all this (or perhaps because of it) they have a strong manufacturing sector that produces upmarket products, especially cars and high-end capital equipment (Seimens, for example).

So why is the GOP solution to instead try to turn us to an economy like Somalia's?

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 54):The numbers that came out are estimates. We won't know the real numbers for another couple of months.

The previous months' figures were also revised upwards today, so it's possible that today's figures could be revised upwards or downwards a couple of days before the election. I think it'll be too late by then though, so today's figures are probably the last which will matter unless the election is INCREDIBLY close at the end.

If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 54):Must be that new math they teach in schools or somebody's trying to get reelected.

The first thing you learn doing math is to not add/multiply/etc. apples and oranges. Jobs added and unemployment aren't directly correlated. BTW for some reason here only unemployment figures are used, never jobs added/lost. Don't know why, but I suspect it's because we have a less strong demography (less children) so we could have no job creation and still a reduction in unemployment. In Germany they use yet another number as an indicator, jobs available.

New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams

Quoting pu (Reply 53):Despite the assurances of those stuck in Stage 2 of Kohlberg's scale, the "information" or "knowledge" jobs do not simply multiply to match the educated population.

So what do you propose to do? Retard progress to ensure there are enough jobs for people to do, even if they could be done more efficiently?

The future will be owned by smart and educated people. My advice is to become one of those people.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55): Somehow, in spite of all this (or perhaps because of it) they have a strong manufacturing sector that produces upmarket products, especially cars and high-end capital equipment (Seimens, for example).

Assuming that you ignore all of the production German companies have been moving offshore, including to the US.

And since you bring it up, Jonathan Browning, president of Volkswagen Group of America, had some comments after electing to construct a new Audi factory in Mexico:

Quote:If the United States wants to continue to be a magnet for foreign investment, it will have to compete for it...Companies have choices.

Can I just say that: In order to make Obama look bad, they simply add in the number of people retiring or going on disability to bump up the unemployment rate? Kinda like how the low-life 47% who "pay no taxes" include seniors on Social Security and the military.

I did get one interesting bit of information on the news tonight. WHile the head of the BLS gets the numbers Friday morning like the rest of us the White House is quietly informed the night before in case they need to warn various senior officials at Treasury, the FED, etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):And unless Americans are going to start working at Chinese wages, the decision is going to stay simple.

Take a look at the unnecessary costs of employment - starting with employer nanny care.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):There's really nothing complicated about the formula: lower the tax burdens to keep overall costs of doing business under control, limit regulation to keep barriers to entry low, and have an educated workforce to carry out new, innovative ideas.

How about eliminating the cost burden of employer nanny care in order to lower the cost of goods sold? That is something that can be done far raster then improving education over a generation. (Assuming, of core, that the conservatives will be willing to finance improvements.)

Regulations are not as much of a problem as our willingness to let China flood our markets while avoiding any resemblance of equality in trade. Maybe it is time to look at what is in the best interests of the Nation instead of how many jobs will be lost in order for corporations to "maximize their profits".

I did get one interesting bit of information on the news tonight. WHile the head of the BLS gets the numbers Friday morning like the rest of us the White House is quietly informed the night before in case they need to warn various senior officials at Treasury, the FED, etc.

That is just sad. Oh well, kinda funny when you look at it. It had all the makings of watergate.

Must be that new math they teach in schools or somebody's trying to get reelected

The new math though says that there were 800 thousand more people working in September than August, and 456 thousand less unemployed. And fewer people were out of thr workforce.

The trend has been going down for some time, and the BLS has their numbers. THey usually get revised an d then changed and changed again. The only reason the GOP is mad is that at this point the number keeps the trend going for the recovery that is very much in place

Also the number to look for when doing the UNemployment rate % is the Number unemplyed % by the civilian labor force.

Jobs added is a measure that does not include Farm workers, and is an estimate until more info is available later. My guess is that in 2 months the 114,000 will be more along the lines of 180-200,000

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):So in other words, run an economy like Germany's. Great. Germany has higher tax rates than the U.S. They have a large amount of government regulation and a strong labor movement. Somehow, in spite of all this (or perhaps because of it) they have a strong manufacturing sector that produces upmarket products, especially cars and high-end capital equipment (Seimens, for example).

So why is the GOP solution to instead try to turn us to an economy like Somalia's?

Ireland is more like it. The parallels are uncanny. Worked out really nice, just as George W's eight years of doing this worked out quite nicely. But why learn from the past, why side with science, why learn from others when you can also make fun of it and feel superior. This works especially well if you have not the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):Let's stop beating around the bush and just tell it like it is: The GOP has turned into an Anti-American party that is concerned with gaining power at the expense of America if that is what is necessary to achieve that goal. They are not a loyal opposition, but a DISloyal opposition intentionally trying to sabotage their own country to further their own ends.

Oh silly Doc. Didn't you know that doing what is best for yourself with blatant disregard of the rest of the country is what makes America great?

Let's face it. Americans don't like America and the great country it is, or could be. Americans like themselves. That's why everything they believe in personally must be fought for. Everything else is un-American. That's why all a party needs to promise is to fight for what they believe to be ''America'' (no foreigners, no homosexuals, lots of jesus, etc.). Their party hates the same things as much as they do, so if they tell them to go a certain economic route then it must also be right. That they suffer financially from the decisions of the same party is their sacrifice to ''America'', because they're made believe that they aren't suffering or being exploited - no, they just keep America great and if they only believe in it strongly enough, they will too succeed just as the people that laugh at them (the 47% slackers).

There's this apt analogy of the dog that is sitting in the trunk of the car and thinks ''maybe tomorrow, he'll let me drive''.

I have asked this question in many threads before but so far not received an answer. Name one country that has ever succeeded economically with the propositions of the GOP platform, and I'll name you 20 countries that have succeeded going a much more ''socialist'' way than Obama.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):Let's stop beating around the bush and just tell it like it is: The GOP has turned into an Anti-American party that is concerned with gaining power at the expense of America if that is what is necessary to achieve that goal. They are not a loyal opposition, but a DISloyal opposition intentionally trying to sabotage their own country to further their own ends.

Or maybe it's the realization that the easy way isn't the smart way, that lifesaving surgery can be very painful and entail a long and difficult rehabilitation but is ultimately the best option, that things that seem sound now could collapse under their own weight later on, that the snowballs should be stopped before they grow big enough to crush us, and that Americans rather than the American government should be the ones leading the charge.

...which ultimately punish ourselves. We either pay higher taxes on imports or more expensive domestic goods. Open trade and competition is the way to go, protectionism is just rearranging deck chairs.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):I never understood that mentality among families. What's wrong with two incomes? Why does the guy have to bring home all the money? In my opinion, two incomes are a hell a lot better than one income.

Why women don't want to work is completely beyond me. This isn't the 1940's anymore.

Exactly!! My brother got a job and made his girlfriend quit her job then he just got fired and now there both out of work and he his hitting me up for a handout..WTF? I said shouldn't have made your girl quit her job..Sounds like a stupid mistake on your part is not an emergency on my part.

Because most people hate their jobs, (according to polls)
and,
because of another thing which invalidates all the textbook capitalism-solves-everything simplistic solutions:
........Most people rate a good quality of life higher than achieving the highest possible material gain.
.
People would rather spend more time with their family than work harder to get a bigger house or "better" car in many cases, and, these choices will become even more common after the fallout from the global financial meltdown settles.

Because people *want* the Eisenhower/Kennedy era again. We *want* jobs where we don't have to work just to squeak by. We *want* to raise a family. We *want* what we had. Problem is, people in charge of super-PACs want money. They are willing to sell out the American middle class to get it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):I never understood that mentality among families. What's wrong with two incomes? Why does the guy have to bring home all the money? In my opinion, two incomes are a hell a lot better than one income.

Couple next to me have two kids. Between preschool and daycare costs alone, they figure that her staying home is worth $70k. So given taxes, that's worth a $100k job. When the kids are in school and don't need daycare, she'll go back to work, she says.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 68):Because people *want* the Eisenhower/Kennedy era again. We *want* jobs where we don't have to work just to squeak by. We *want* to raise a family. We *want* what we had. Problem is, people in charge of super-PACs want money. They are willing to sell out the American middle class to get it.

Exactly. There was money to go around, rather than money getting hoarded.

If that's your goal, you're already doomed to failure. You could become dictator and have any measure you want completely and immediately implemented and you couldn't achieve that. Those days are gone and they are never, ever coming back.

The reason is simple: America isn't the only game in town anymore. The rest of the world now has infrastructure. They now have industry. They now have technology. They now have education. Much of the world has now emerged from the dark cloud of Communism.

During the Eisenhower/Kennedy era the US could do no wrong. There was no alternative and there was no competition, and as a result America did two things: we built up a big lead, which was good, and we got lazy and complacent, which was bad. Competition is the reality of the future whether you like it or not. Business and investment will be earned rather than awarded by default, being the only place not bombed all to hell.

Trying to get those days back is a fool's errand. Attempts to regain the past or retain the present are ultimately useless. Efforts should be focused on grabbing the future by the horns and going back to policies of the past is far from a guarantee of achieving that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):In that case, then the improvement is real. What matters is that the methods are consistent.

What really burns my shorts is that the Conservatives are actually cheering a bad jobs outlook. Is it really like that? You hate this President so much that you want to see the country suffer more just to get him out of office?

That strikes me as being downright Anti-American.

Welcome to my RU List - but oops! you're already on it.

I really can't add much more to what you say in this and your subsequent post. The GOP Hard Right is not only anti-American but seems devoid of basic Christian values like compassion and love for all. Free Market Darwinism, shoot thy neighbor and Ayn Rand selfishness have replaced The Sermon on the Mount.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 72):Can you actually prove that the numbers have been falsified?

I've worked in finance for 30 years. Fudging numbers is easy without actually lying. A few compounded rounding, a few optimistic estimates (remember that the BLS data is based on polling data and is just as susceptible to sampling problems as political polls), and there you go.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):Quoting cws818 (Reply 72):
Can you actually prove that the numbers have been falsified?

I've worked in finance for 30 years. Fudging numbers is easy without actually lying. A few compounded rounding, a few optimistic estimates (remember that the BLS data is based on polling data and is just as susceptible to sampling problems as political polls), and there you go.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 74):I've worked in finance for 30 years. Fudging numbers is easy without actually lying. A few compounded rounding, a few optimistic estimates (remember that the BLS data is based on polling data and is just as susceptible to sampling problems as political polls), and there you go.

Dreadnought, the BLS is non-partisan and is staffed by the world's finest economists, (as is the NBER). I have had the good fortune to also present to them. Believe me, they wrote the book on polling errors, bias and sampling. These folks are more interested in protecting their peer reputation that over politics.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 72):I'm sure that the numbers mean something to those who have been recently hired, as well as their families. Indeed, they just might vote.

That is terrific! However, some would be pissed as hell if their best job that they could find is dressing up as Santa Clause and having screaming kids sit on their lap when his previous job paid very well. To him, it's not a recovery but at least greatful that they can earn a few dollars.

As I recall, nobody has accused them of lying. The accusation is that they fudge the numbers. The point of my post was that the two are very different. I see (and produce) fudged numbers every day. If you know who produced them, and who the audience is, you take that into account and make adjustments accordingly (another fudge). But the day someone gives me made-up numbers (i.e. a lie), or god-forbid I produce any, somebody will lose their job in short order.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Because some families want to raise their own kids, not some day care. Because some families figure $150,000/year is enough, why make $200,000/year? Because some families value the flexibility of only being tied down with one job, not two.

It's not as if stay-at-home moms always stay at home, or it's against their will

Quoting Superfly (Reply 76):That is terrific! However, some would be pissed as hell if their best job that they could find is dressing up as Santa Clause and having screaming kids sit on their lap when his previous job paid very well. To him, it's not a recovery but at least greatful that they can earn a few dollars.

Some of those Mall Santa's make 30,000-40,000 a season. I'd be glad to make that much for 2 months of work.
But it's not just those jobs coming around. A lot of businesses are hiring. Some companies are doing a lot of contract to hire. They take a 90 day look, and if they like what they see, those folks go full time. Housing is a lot stronger than a lot of folks realize. Esepcially with the low interest rates forcing a lot of refinancings and new home puchases.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the

It's not that way in most cases. If I wanted to put my kids in daycare, it would cost 25,000 or so a year. For the time being it is better for my family that my wife stays home and works with them. Some families are not so fortunate to be able to afford it, and some families and parents have no such inclination to do it. However for my family it is working well so far. It also helps that my wife is a teacher. My kids are getting social activites, reading skills and crafts, with the benefits of being home. Kids are only young once, and it is good to raise them at home and bond with them if possible.

But theirs is not a business with direct inflows and outflows. They have to make estimates based on surveys and payroll data. Their numbers over time are the big concern. The economy is recovering ,and if this number was a bit of overkill, then the Nov 3 numbers will correct it. However all the numbers look better in their report. The number of out of work, working, and total workforce all went in the right direction. Part time jobs have always counted, even if they are not always the most destirable.

In fact, to the point I made above, my wife is looking at the idea of doing work for a local gym for 6-10 hours a week just to do something, and the kids would not need daycare, She would be one of the "part" timers at that point, but it would be intentional. Right now she is one of the "out of the work force" people. But that is intentional as well.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 80):In fact, to the point I made above, my wife is looking at the idea of doing work for a local gym for 6-10 hours a week just to do something, and the kids would not need daycare, She would be one of the "part" timers at that point, but it would be intentional. Right now she is one of the "out of the work force" people. But that is intentional as well.

Which would mean she does not fall into either U-3 or U-6.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 77):As I recall, nobody has accused them of lying. The accusation is that they fudge the numbers.

But they're only fudging numbers when the number is below 8%? When it's above 8% they're not fudging? That's your implication.

And yes, you are accusing. And you are also gleefully cheering a bad jobs outlook and disappointed when it improves. Why do I seem to recall that in 2008 you said that you wouldn't hire anyone for your business until Obama was out of office?

Nobody said that. 8.3% was a fudge. In fact using U-3 in general is a fudge. By what reasoning do you simply not count those people who want a job but have been unable to find one for more than 2 years, for example? I'd say U-5 is a much better and more meaningful measure in general, and the delta between U-5 and U-6 is also significant (although U-6 itself is of questionable validity).

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):Nobody said that. 8.3% was a fudge. In fact using U-3 in general is a fudge. By what reasoning do you simply not count those people who want a job but have been unable to find one for more than 2 years, for example? I'd say U-5 is a much better and more meaningful measure in general, and the delta between U-5 and U-6 is also significant (although U-6 itself is of questionable validity).

You may disagree on the value of the index, but that does not mean that the numbers are "fudged." "Fudging" generally means "intentionally altering so as to deceive." The calculation methods that BLS uses are public. And I guarantee that they know a lot more about statistics, sample collection, and bias than you do.

Well, we can disagree about whether fudging is a lie or not. In the case of U-3, by your definition, it is indeed intended to deceive. Why would you knock completely out of the statistic those who have looked for work and desire to work and have been unable to find work for more than a certain number of months? The only reason I can think of is to be able to present a lower unemployment rate to the public. You rightfully say that the methodology is available, but c'mon - most people in this country are woefully ignorant of what's going on. I doubt more than 10% of the population know the difference between U-3 and U-6.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 86):
DocLightning's main point is that unemployment numbers have been measured like this for a long time. Nothing has suddenly been changed to make the result look better.

As I said in my first post, I don't blame Obama for this. Do a little research - you will find that there is widespread agreement among economists that the unemployment rate is a poor economic indicator. Here is a page from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which states emphatically that they do not even look at the unemployment rate, but prefer to look at other measures such as the labor participation rate as a much more reliable and meaningful measure of the real employment picture.

Quote:Q: How do the movements of unemployment claims inform the Bureaus thinking?

A: A bulge in jobless claims would appear to forecast declining employment and rising unemployment, but we do not use the initial claims numbers in our discussions, partly because there is a lot of week-to-week noise in the series.

Q: What about the unemployment rate?

A: Unemployment is generally a lagging indicator, particularly after the trough in economic activity determined by the NBER. For instance, the unemployment rate peaked 15 months after the NBER trough month in the 1990-91 recession and 19 months after the NBER trough month in the 2001 recession. The unemployment rate (which the committee does not use) tends to lag behind employment (which the committee does use) on account of variations in labor-force participation.

Personally (as an economist), I think the two measures should be looked at side by side, with the labor participation rate probably being the more important indicator of the two.

Here is the latest BLS graph of labor participation rate. If you think that the unemployment situation is improving, I think you are smoking something.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 87):And let's not forget that 110,000+ jobs were added. And that number isn't a fudge.

It's impressive, yet doesn't keep up with population growth numbers. And as I pointed out earlier, you have a research firm that claimed the jobs numbers would need to be showing gains of 279,000 or better each month from August through November to move the needle below 8%.

While it's possible that firm (full-disclosure, a Republican-leaning one) could have erred on their numbers, I'm having a hard time believing any error would be not only of such a large magnitude, but that only one month's numbers would move the needle as well when they claimed you'd need several months of that large, sustained job growth to move it under 8%.

Question; does anyone know if the statistics being used are based on households or individuals?

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

Participation was up 0.4 percent from May and 3.3 percent higher than a year earlier and has remained greater than 46 million all year as the unemployment rate stayed higher than 8 percent. New jobless numbers will be released Sept. 7.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):Here is the latest BLS graph of labor participation rate. If you think that the unemployment situation is improving, I think you are smoking something.

Well, I'm not an economist (didn't find it square enough when I studied economics) and I'm not familiar with the way the US does its statistics. However I can tell from your graph that it's too big a timescale to show anything about the last few months.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 93):Well, I'm not an economist (didn't find it square enough when I studied economics) and I'm not familiar with the way the US does its statistics. However I can tell from your graph that it's too big a timescale to show anything about the last few months.

Here is a zoom in on the last year.

There is no indication of the downward trend reversing.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 92):Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

So by your argument, GOP policies, such as slashing taxes for the rich (which BO has gone along with) and slashing government spending (which BO has gone along with), have made the situation worse.

Good, let's place a 95% income tax on those earning more than $25m/yr. FORCE them to either invest it in business or give it to Uncle Sam. No more money-hoarding. How about passing legislation to give incentives to businesses who hire Americans? Why has your GOP blocked all of those?

Why is it that in eleven years of the GOP calling the fiscal shots that we have not once had a working real economy? That little bubble from 2005-2008 was financed on bad loans and a lack of oversight.

OK, so the outlook is bad and worse. You can't blame BO's policies for them because he hasn't been allowed to implement most of them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):Why is it that in eleven years of the GOP calling the fiscal shots that we have not once had a working real economy?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 96):OK, so the outlook is bad and worse. You can't blame BO's policies for them because he hasn't been allowed to implement most of them.

(Sigh) Here I sit having a relatively non-partisan discussion around measuring unemployment, and you have to revive the old "It's all your fault" line.

Let's recall that the GOP "called the fiscal shots" from 1994 to 2006, and did pretty well for a while until they started squabbling, notably with liberal GOPers siding with the Dems refusing to reform the mortgage industry, social security, etc.

Let's also recall that the GOP has never had full control of the senate since the 19th century I think. They have always had to negotiate something with the Dems.

And finally let's recall that for the first couple of years Obama had complete control of the House and Senate. He could have done anything he wanted, unlike any GOP president in a century. If raising taxes is such a good idea, he could have done it - the GOP could not have done anything.

And finally, if true conservatives were in power, we would not have the federal entitlement issue (entitlements being in the hands of the states), federal income taxes would be maybe 15% tops, and we'd have a balanced budget. All these entitlements, extra-constitutional departments, and stimulus spending were all Liberal/Progressive ideas, that unfortunately, once created, are virtually impossible to cut down.

Let's get back to the subject.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Food-stamp use reached a record 46.7 million people in June, the government said, as Democrats prepare to nominate President Barack Obama for a second term with the economy as a chief issue in the campaign.

Participation was up 0.4 percent from May and 3.3 percent higher than a year earlier and has remained greater than 46 million all year as the unemployment rate stayed higher than 8 percent. New jobless numbers will be released Sept. 7.

This just proves that the Bush tax cuts are failures. The middle class and poor have taken it on the chin. Meanwhile the Rich have increased their gains while offshoring.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 88):Here is the latest BLS graph of labor participation rate. If you think that the unemployment situation is improving, I think you are smoking something.

What's interesting here, though is that since 2001, when Bush had his first tax cuts , the rate has declined. I think it is a combination of offshoring and now retirement by the baby boomers.

But technically since she has looked for work to get the gym job, she is U6.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97):If raising taxes is such a good idea, he could have done it - the GOP could not have done anything.

Sure, that would have made sense. Especially considering the Recession we are still recovering from and just now getting back under 8 % unemployment. Taxes need to be raised to cover the costs being incurred by the feds past and present, whether the Ted Nuggents and Hank Williams Jrs of the world aggree or not.

Please explain why the tax cuts, which affected the poor and middle class far more than the rich, caused this? You are making the argument that since it rained in London and there was an earthquake in Turkey, the rain caused the earthquake.

Make your case.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 99):Please explain why the tax cuts, which affected the poor and middle class far more than the rich, caused this?

I never said that it caused it. I said that the cuts were failures. The reason for the cuts were to put more money in the hands of the people in order to spend it, and increase prosperity and boost the economy. Your own graph shows that the bush tax cuts did nothing for increasing the labor participation rate, and in effect they were a failure for more than one reason ,but in this case, your example , shows that even with the tax cuts , more people wound up on food stamps.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 100):I never said that it caused it. I said that the cuts were failures. The reason for the cuts were to put more money in the hands of the people in order to spend it, and increase prosperity and boost the economy.

Then the question becomes, for an economist, what other variables impacted the economy.

Let me explain: One of the basic principles of the study of economics is "All Other Things Being Equal". If taxes are cut, and NOTHING ELSE changes, then the wealth and spending power of the people will grow, as will the economy - anything else simply does not make sense. But in real life, AOTBE is never the case - there are always thousands of related and unrelated elements and externalities. 9/11 was a big externality, as was the medicare expansion. The art of economics is to try to identify, not the impact of single policy change - because that is easy - but how the different elements interact.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101):Let me explain: One of the basic principles of the study of economics is "All Other Things Being Equal". If taxes are cut, and NOTHING ELSE changes, then the wealth and spending power of the people will grow, as will the economy - anything else simply does not make sense. But in real life, AOTBE is never the case - there are always thousands of related and unrelated elements and externalities. 9/11 was a big externality, as was the medicare expansion. The art of economics is to try to identify, not the impact of single policy change - because that is easy - but how the different elements interact.

And that is the rub isn't it. Especially for the 5 trillion dollar tax cut that Romney is floating. In order to not screw the middle class, he has to depend on economic growth. Which is counter too his other claim, that he would't increase the defecit. You can't cut taxes and expect an immediate return for the economy. It is a gradual return.

Here is the other rub. Since we are in a world econmy now. It is not necessarily the US economy and US worker that would benefit from the tax cuts. I would argue that offshoring would send most of those dollars out of the states, leaving a net gain of zilch, which would mean that like the Bush tax custs, not much good would come of it for the US in the short term. The world economy might see a gain, but not the US.

Google that along with the word "Factcheck". There is no 5 trillion tax cut. There is a plan for rate cuts combined with eliminations of loopholes and deductions. Total taxes paid (by the wealthier taxpayers) should not decline.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 102): I would argue that offshoring would send most of those dollars out of the states

Why? Already, we are starting to see signs that offshoring to China is not as competitive as it was 10 years ago. Same thing happened with S Korea, HK and Japan in the 90s.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103):
Google that along with the word "Factcheck". There is no 5 trillion tax cut. There is a plan for rate cuts combined with eliminations of loopholes and deductions. Total taxes paid (by the wealthier taxpayers) should not decline.

It's a 5 trillion dollar tax cut until he identifies his loopholes and deductions. He can't claim that the wealthy will survive without pointing out his specific deductions and loopholes. WIthout them. THis is still a 5 trillion dollar tax cut.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103):Why? Already, we are starting to see signs that offshoring to China is not as competitive as it was 10 years ago. Same thing happened with S Korea, HK and Japan in the 90s.

China still holds a very solid peg to the dollar, and even if China gets too expensive, there is India, the phillipenes, mexico, vietnam, and indonesia.

If you really think the number of un-employed people is down, you need to read what Prof. Peter Morrici has to say about it. Of course, if you don't "like" Prof. Morici, (possibly because he almost always wears "bow" ties ), then you will no doubt call Prof. Morici a "nut job", and I'm sure the unemployment numbers will continue to decline !

(Or at least until all of the people who are unemployed, starve to death.) (Perhaps then you will believe Prof. Morici does in fact, know what he is talking about ?)

For what ever reason, this "link" seems to be ..........."not working?" Perhaps if you just copy and paste it to your browser, that will do the trick...........

For those too lazy to copy & paste, (or who do not wish to know the facts).......(as only Prof. Morici can present them), I'll attempt to sum it all up;

Prof. Morici says.......most of the "newly created" jobs were "temporary" jobs, among people who had long since "given up" ever finding a REAL job again;

Prof. Morici than goes on to say, the economy added a net 114,000 jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, adding its household survey reported that total employment rose by 873,000 in September, much of which was due to an increase in part-time work. Some 582,000 Americans took part-time positions because of slack business conditions or those jobs were the only work they could find.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 105):If you really think the number of un-employed people is down, you need to read what Prof. Peter Morrici has to say about it. Of course, if you don't "like" Prof. Morici, (possibly because he almost always wears "bow" ties ), then you will no doubt call Prof. Morici a "nut job", and I'm sure the unemployment numbers will continue to decline !

But at the end of the day, employment is employment and the numbers did improve. Part time work is by no means the end all be all of a job, but they do count, and for many people they are a stepping block to full time work.

I find it interesting that, up until as late as 2011, these same hard core right-wingers were saying "Oh, the numbers are just fine. Move along. Nothing to see here." But, now, there is something awfuly, horribly wrong with the numbers. How?

I find it interesting that, up until as late as 2011, these same hard core right-wingers were saying "Oh, the numbers are just fine. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Huh? People have been howling about the unemployment rate since 2008, and the methodology behind it has been an issue of debate for decades.

I never understand what he's talking about. I think if a certain vairable has been used for a very long time, even if it's flawed, and the number gets better, it is probably good news... that being said I've also heard about this debate for a while (pre-"late 2011.") But honestly I have no idea what "hard core right-wingers" he's talking about, probably the most extreme example you could ever find extrapolated to everyone to the right of the far left

Quoting casinterest (Reply 110):I think he referring to the acceptance of the BLS numbers on unemployment. Not the unemployment rate itself.

If that is the case, I hope he learns to set things up in a logical matter and refrain from the vague, partisan remarks. Would save everyone a lot of time.

The thing that really kills me (and is really lowering my little remaining respect for the GOP) is how every single piece of good news has a negative spin that 'proves' that the economy isn't getting better. I get that most of the arguments have reason behind them, but it seems like if all of the GOP's arguments in the last few years were correct, we'd be living in Somalian poverty by now. Sure, our economy is not that great, but it has at least bottomed out, slowed its downward spiral, or improved just a little bit, but I hear none of that from the ,GOP ever.

Really does add to the notion that the GOP is just trying to find a negative spin on everything. I know many of you are yelling that you have known that for a while... just trying to figure it out for myself free from as much bias as I can avoid

Quoting casinterest (Reply 110):I think he referring to the acceptance of the BLS numbers on unemployment. Not the unemployment rate itself.

There is widespread agreement that U-3 is an inadequate measure, due to the number of people who are left out of it (long term unemployment), which becomes particularly egregious during a drawn out period of high unemployment (which we now have, because those long term unemployed become a rather substantial number.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):If that is the case, I hope he learns to set things up in a logical matter and refrain from the vague, partisan remarks. Would save everyone a lot of time.

Just gimme a pair of loose-fittin’ shoes, some tight pussy, and a warm place to shit, and I’ll be all right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):There is widespread agreement that U-3 is an inadequate measure, due to the number of people who are left out of it (long term unemployment), which becomes particularly egregious during a drawn out period of high unemployment (which we now have, because those long term unemployed become a rather substantial number

But U3 has been consistant as the official rate, whether or not the others rise or fall. Should we really be measuring "discouraged" workers? These folks haven't even filled out a job application in 4 weeks. If they are serious about getting a job, a better U3 would make them get off their tush and put in an application or two.

Lets see, we have now amassed 113 replies so far; as far as I can tell, not a single thing in "the economy" has changed since this thread started, and not a single Obama supporter has decided to vote for Mitt Romney; however, while all of this useless bickering back and forth has been "going on", it does seem that quite a few "fence straddlers" have decided to "can" Obama and elect Mitt; (especially since Mitt made the POTUS look like a blithering idiot while they were debating the other night.)

I just read today, (Monday), that the "dems" are now "looking forward" to their other "far more experienced", and "gifted orator", incumbent VP Joe Biden, to "step in", and "balance" things out, when HE debates Mr. Ryan ; OH YEAH ! I can't wait ! Should be a VERY entertaining discussion..............( one would hope that the DNC will have sufficient medical staff on hand, to assist Mr. Biden in getting his foot out of his mouth, as he seems to usually require these days, after opening it.)

Here's a serious question for anyone who has read all 113 replies above; do you really have any idea what the POTUS will do, should he get re-elected ? Do you even care ? Here's a GREAT idea; drop by your favorite book store, (or just go to Amazon), spend a paltry $27.95 (US), and pick up a copy of Edward Klein's new book, "The Amateur"....Barack Obama In The White House;

I have only read chapters 10 and 11 so far, but if the other 20 chapters are as "illuminating" as these two were, I'm sure you will find that it's a very "informational" volume !

Charley

Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein

Quoting Superfly (Reply 76):That is terrific! However, some would be pissed as hell if their best job that they could find is dressing up as Santa Clause and having screaming kids sit on their lap when his previous job paid very well.